English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

.....Not that I feel it should or shouldn`t bother you....I`m just wondering what your take on OIL is, if you care to share.

2007-05-20 06:20:11 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

25 answers

No, but civilization's obsession with power and control through oil does.

2007-05-20 06:26:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

I think we should be working MUCH harder to use the available alternatives to oil. Although it will likely always be necessary for many purposes, the oil companies and those who benefit from their profits have always done everything in their power to keep alternatives out of the mainstream. It may take a coalition of the citizens to get us off oil. I can see that happening at some point. A whole new industrial revolution with a very painful transition.

2007-05-20 13:32:25 · answer #2 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 2 0

I find that when any economy depends on one resource for it's gluttonous survival that it is very bothersome. The fact that we are so dependent on oil shows that who is in power. And, it shows that we are at their mercy because they are the ones making the laws, in their favor mind you. I believe electric autos are the only viable and clean energy source that will be of the future. Ethanol is just as polluting as oil and it creates a competition between food and energy. So, right there, that is not a good sustainable source. Biofuels is not sustainable because much of it relies on palm oil. People are burning down rain forests to farm for palm oil. It also takes alot of planting to create just a little of palm oil. Biofuel also creates a competition between food and energy. Hydrogen is far too expensive and it doesn't get us off oil. There are alot of new car companies that are building electric cars that are getting over 250 miles per charge. Some of them need only 10 minutes to completely recharge. The Tesla is just one of them. So is Phoenix motors truck and SUV. But the problem right now is that they are too expensive. It would come down if the US gov't would subsidize them to the tune of $250 billion dollars a year instead of subsidizing the oil industry for that same amount like Bush did since he got into office.
Like I said, it's all about who is in power. And, right now, the oil industry, the nuclear industry, the pharmaceutical industry and the military industrial corporate complex owns our azzes.

2007-05-20 13:33:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Both answers are YES... we are killing nature ourselves others in the name of oil . the technology to use alternative energy sources has been around for many many years, for example I saw an electric car from the 1800s in a a french collection on TV the other day, and steam power was used bef oil... the OIL BARONS and cronies do not want us non depend ant on their product. now if that isn't domination and absolute control what is? its beyond unfair business practice (aka outright extortion)... yet every ones afraid to fire the first shot n say no Ty to oil ? sad huh

2007-05-26 10:48:20 · answer #4 · answered by The Thinker 6 · 1 0

My take on your question is, the oil companies are so rich and powerful, they have done such a great job of making the world addicted to oil. No one person or any group of people can undo what the oil companies has done to the world. Talking about holding the world by it's balls.

2007-05-28 12:02:16 · answer #5 · answered by furrryyy 5 · 1 0

It bothers me a lot. The money spent on this war could been much better spent on getting away from the strangle hold the oil has on the world. The latest report on the people killed in Iraq was up to 720,000 and we are losing our brave troops every day to protect our interest in oil. It's time to support our troops and bring them home. Just who do you kill in a civil war?

2007-05-20 13:38:10 · answer #6 · answered by lonetraveler 5 · 1 0

Yes the way that the world uses oil bothers me. sooner or later there will be no more fossil fuels and what will happen then. I think that we should honestly go back to the ole horse and buggy to preserve oil.

2007-05-28 12:21:36 · answer #7 · answered by beauty_tells_all 3 · 0 0

It sure does. We DO have alternatives to the combustion engine. For many years now. Petropolitics has been among us more than a 100 years. Look at the results of it. Religious wars, death, destruction and hatred. Why? Because of mental disorder called;Greed by a certain segment of our planet. Some argue that greed is good. I dispute that!

2007-05-27 22:32:28 · answer #8 · answered by Steve M 2 · 1 0

No. It is true, oil is the life-blood of our economy, it affects the price of everything you purchase to some degree.
We actually have plenty of our own oil here in the U.S. Unfortunately, the environmental wackos have been successful in preventing us from drilling for it. Don't know how the hell we let that happen.

2007-05-26 20:21:04 · answer #9 · answered by Stinky 2 · 1 0

It is interesting that you should ask this question. Recently, I come across this book. You might want to read it.

The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets (Cornell Studies in Political Economy) by David E. Spiro

Book Description

Between 1973 and 1980, the cost of crude oil rose suddenly and dramatically, precipitating convulsions in international politics. Conventional wisdom holds that international capital markets adjusted automatically and remarkably well: enormous amounts of money flowed into oil-rich states, and efficient markets then placed that new money in cash-poor Third World economies.

David Spiro has followed the money trail, and the story he tells contradicts the accepted beliefs. Most of the sudden flush of new oil wealth didn't go to poor oil-importing countries around the globe. Instead, the United States made a deal with Saudi Arabia to sell it U.S. securities in secret, a deal resulting in a substantial portion of Saudi assets being held by the U.S. government. With this arrangement, the U.S. government violated its agreements with allies in the developed world. Spiro argues that American policymakers took this action to prop up otherwise intolerable levels of U.S. public debt. In effect, recycled OPEC wealth subsidized the debt-happy policies of the U.S. government as well as the debt-happy consumption of its citizenry.

2007-05-20 13:31:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

fedest.com, questions and answers